The Heritage Foundation - Leadership for America

September 16, 2009 Paul, Albany writes:

This piece is sort of true but ignores some basic facts of history, including the close cultural, historical and religious ties between the two. It doesn’t mention that Yuschenko (the main driver of anti-Russian policies) has a 7 percent approval rating and that polls have shown an overwhelming majority of Ukrainians WANT closer ties to Russia. Also, the authors ignore some conservatives’ argument that the West should help Russia reverse the Soviets, who gave away territory to Ukraine and Kazakhstan an an enticement to join the Soviet Union. I’m not against Ukraine independence but I’ll repeat what I said in 1991–it should be smaller. Take it from someone who’s studied these issues for more than 30 years now, it would be more logical, and fairer, to help Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine return to Russia and to help the rest of independent Ukraine achieve a friendlier and more balanced relationship with their Russian cousins.

September 16, 2009 Michael writes:

Paul, your knowledge of geography seems to be somewhat foggy. Russia did not help Ukraine regain some of its land and did not give Ukraine any of its Russian lands. The eastern part of Ukraine, geographically and with a majority of Ukrainian speaking population, stretched all the way to Rostov on the Don. There are areas in present day Russia and Belorussia that at one time was populated by Ukrainians. Obviously with the massive Russification experienced by Ukrainians during Czarist rule and then when the damned Bolsheviks came to power, many of those people were sent further east and those that remained were forcibly assimilated to Russia. As far as the West is concerned, there are present day Polish towns along the Ukrainian-Polish border that were and still are populated by Ukrainians, my mother was born in Parymyshyl (Pzemyshyl in Polish) and many Ukrainians still live there and it is part of today’s Poland. In all honesty Paul learn geography as it should be learned, by knowing the ethnicity of those living in those areas and not by what you have learned in geography books published by those who continue, to this day, push the same all crap.

September 16, 2009 G-Man, Chesapeake, VA writes:

Isn’t it likely that the guy shaking President Yushchenko’s hand in the photo is the one who had him poisoned during the last election?! I hope he remembers to wash his hand after “glad handing” with Vladimir!

G-Man

September 16, 2009 G-Man, Chesapeake, VA writes:

…i’m not done opining! This is another reason for America to go after it’s own oil resources! If we flood the oil market with American crude we can cause oil prices to go down, thereby limiting the amount of money the Russkies make on oil, which they are using to rebuild their war machine! Drill here, drill now has economic as well as strategic implications. Who knows, maybe we would help relieve pressure on Ukraine!

G-Man

September 16, 2009 Ray, Utica writes:

Part of the difficulty people have in European history is
the tendency to overlook the fact tha borders have shifted
multiple times and population (especially peasants) have been
left behind. Look at the map of Greater Lithuania in the 15th
century. Ukraine was in it. The Crimean Khanate was not.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Lithuanian_state_in_13-15th_centuries.png

September 16, 2009 Peter Borisow, New York writes:

The struggle to subdue Ukraine goes back to the days of Peter I, who hijacked Ukraine’s land, church and history to create the fiction of a “Russian” empire. Even the name “Russia” — “Rossiya” in Russian — is an historical slight of hand, deriving not from the Rus of Kievan Rus, but rather from the Ukrainian word “rossiyane”, meaning the scattered ones, as Ukrainians described the hunter-gatherers living to their north. Without Ukraine, Russia is mostly Asian tundra with little manufacturing and an economy based on selling natural resources, something like a frozen emirate with nukes. Of course, Russia will do everything in its power to reconquer Ukraine. If it succeeds, it will again challenge the U.S. world leadership. If it fails, it will fade into the garbage heap of history’s failed empires, there to rot in its Stalinistic legacy of genocide, slaughter and state terrorism.

September 16, 2009 Alex, Columbus, OH writes:

Paul tries to impress us by his 30-years study:Who tought him, what materials he used, is all his knowledge so twisted?

September 17, 2009 Michael, Boston writes:

Paul, I hope you can get a refund from your studies. Ukraine has attempted - in a fair & balanced way - to redress a decade of oppression and terror under the Soviets. It was a genocide; both of humanity & culture. From the Holodomor to KGB murders as recently as the 80’s. I suggest you continue your studies. If Ukraine has offended the tender sensibilities of scum/thugs like Putin & Medvedev, it should earn the support of those in the West, not condemnation. Ukraine & Russia certainly have cultural ties. Ukraine has made every attempt to assimilate their ethnic minorities in a humane & civil manner. Russia, on the other hand, has used violence & war to impose their social (and imperialistic) order. Lastly; you are dead wrong when you say an overwhelming majority support closer ties to Russia. You may be confusing a poll where Ukrainians clearly did not support NATO membership. Please get your facts straight.

September 19, 2009 Rachel, Seattle writes:

Michael, you wrote: “your knowledge of geography seems to be somewhat foggy. Russia did not help Ukraine regain some of its land and did not give Ukraine any of its Russian lands.”

Incorrect. From the 18th century until 1954, the Crimean peninsula was part of Russia. Khrushchev (a Ukrainian) transferred that territory from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR. Previously, Crimea had never been part of Ukraine; before it was part of the Russian empire, it was part of the Ottoman empire.

September 24, 2009 Lidia, Yaremche, Ukraine writes:

Rachel, Michael clearly stated that Russia did not give away its “Russian lands.” You yourself point out that Crimea was part of the Ottoman Empire for centuries and as a matter of fact, the peninsula has no contiguous territory to any part of Russia. It’s like saying Gibraltar is “English land.” Crimea was annexed to the Russian Empire in 1783 and annexed to Ukraine in 1954, making it part of the Russian Empire for a total of only 171 years. Crimea has already been part of Ukraine (with which it is contiguous and whose indigenous people, the Tatars, it has encouraged to return from exile) for nearly a third of that time already (55 years). The Russian-speaking factor in Crimea is strongly influenced by the presence of the Russian fleet in Sevastopol, one of only two major cities on the peninsula. In fact, when I went there to visit an orphanage three years ago, the lady who served me in the local store was Ukrainian from Kalush, the man who rented me my apartment was of Kuban Kozak origins and his grandfather taught him Ukrainian, and the people with whom I visited the orphanage had a classic Kozak family name. I was stunned myself at how non-Russian Sevastopol was in its roots–and by the fact that Moscow has built huge residential projects outside the fleet’s base territory, intended for Russian citizens.
With 70 years of soviet rule and endless aggression on Ukrainian language and culture, it’s hardly surprising that so many Ukrainians have caved in and speak Russian when spoken to.

October 14, 2009 Pipeline Threats to Europe? | Conservative Principles Now writes:

[...] given that Ukraine is set for presidential elections in January — and Russia has been slowly stepping up the pressure. Eastern and Central Europe has a lot of reasons to [...]